It was not a good weekend for the movie studios at the box office. The overall box-office was down nearly 40 percent from the same weekend last year, and things were not helped by the underwhelming performance of Jack the Giant Slayer, Bryan Singer's massive $200 million picture, which came in at just over $28 million, a worse opening than even John Carter. The movie has virtually no hope of becoming a huge success stateside, so Singer's ability to turn a profit will depend on international box office. Like TK, I liked it, but not a lot. It seemed suitable for an oddly small swath of the moviegoing public: It wasn't dark enough for teenagers, but it was too dark for little ones. It was about right for 8-12 year olds. $28 million is about what it deserved, although I'm glad that Nicholas Hoult doesn't have any more films coming out this year, so perhaps he can stave off Taylor Kitch comparisons until Max Max: Fury Road opens.

Likewise, 21 and Over was a pure bomb, coming in at number three with only $9 million, or half of the already disappointing take of Project X, which opened around the same time last year. It's probably because the film's director is a dick in interviews. The Last Exorcism Part II performed even worse, coming in at number four with $8 million, down significantly from the $20 million opening of the original in 2010.

Elsewhere, a few movies got the expected Oscar jump: Silver Linings Playbook jumped 3 percent; Life of Pi jumped 42 percent; and Argo made $2.2 million in theaters despite the fact that it's already out on DVD.

The one bright spot at the box office, at least from a profit standpoint, was Identity Thief, which held strong coming in at number two in its fourth week. It's now officially the first film of 2013 to cross the $100 million mark, and as you can see from the films below, it's pretty typical for that first $100 million movie of the year: A blahtastic flick that manages to break through the early season noise. It took until March to become the first $100 million film of 2013, but that's not unusual. March 1st is probably the mean (median?) average.

Are you trying to tell me that Ghost Rider made a hundred million dollars?

ARE YOU ACTUALLY TRYING TO TELL ME THAT?

God Of Bal-Sagoth

The world is a harsh and unforgiving place, Jerce.

Ray Ray

Slow clap for zeke_the_pig. Comment of the week right here.

zeke_the_pig

Fuck me that Hitch poster is a time capsule. It should be in a goddamn museum, where it could sit, highlighting and warning against that one infinitesimally small window of time in the mid-2000s when the combination of a blazer with an open, un-tucked shirt over a tucked-in t-shirt was deemed an acceptable enough combination to put on a movie poster. We're gonna look back on that poster the same way we look back at hairspray in '86 and flannel in '92. Worse; hell, at least those looks lasted a few years each. That diabolical monstrosity Will Smith is sporting was a thing for about 25 minutes on a Wednesday afternoon in 2005. There must've been a gas leak.

Bert_McGurt

And he's got his initial on his belt buckle! That's how you know he's super-chill.

space_oddity

Ok, if THAT poster for Valentine's Day was the real thing, I'd see that in a heartbeat.

Lee

I'm coming!!!

Mitchell Hundred

You just know that Danny Trejo is going to end up with Godzilla. You know it in your bones.

Arran

I thought Project X had actually done very well for a fairly cheap film with no stars.

I mean, it looked fucking atrocious, but I wouldn't think anyone would call it a disappointment from a money standpoint.

Maybe The Last Exorcism: Part 2 would've done better with a less dumbass name.

Maybe tack on a question mark at the end of the first movie:

The Last Exorcism?

Or:

The Last Exorcism: We Hope?

They THOUGHT it was The Last Exorcism

The Last Exorcism: Maybe!

The Last Exorcism: No, really, we mean it this time!

The Last Exorcism: For Real This Time.

The Last Exorcism: For Real: We Got a Priest Who Doesn't SUCK.

Robert

The film didn't exactly light up the box office the first go around. Why would the sequel be any different? It's low budget indie horror centered on an unknown actress' killer performance.

As for a better title, why not Tour de Cliche: New Orleans? You had Mardi Gras, street musicians, Voodoo, the above ground cemetery, freaky street performers, and lots of drunk people. Then maybe some horror sneaks in with 15 minutes left or so. I can't remember since it was so dreadfully boring.

Lovely Bones

I still cannot, for the life of me, whatsoever comprehend the sheer absurdity of these two horror film titles that have been released in very close proximity, nor determine which is worse. "The *Last* Exorcism: Part 2," and "The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia." Just fucking call it The Haunting in Georgia!

PDamian

Let's face it: the true title of this film is The Last Exorcism, Unless This One Makes $20M on a $5M Budget, In Which Case We Got Three or Four More Lined Up.

ViciousTrollop

If they had only called the first one The Second Last Exorcism or The Penultimate Exorcism I think it would have been okay.

sean

So every year, the first movie that reaches $100 million sucks? Is it some sort of federal law that we didn't know about?

Lee

This list is the reason so much horror is visited upon us by Hollywood year after year. LOTS of people actually pay to see those movies :(

Genevieve Burgess

God help me, but I still want that yellow dress from "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days". Best thing about that movie by a very VERY wide margin.

Sara_Tonin00

that was the first thing I thought! (well, that I wish I could *wear* that dress and look that good.)

sloanbuller

The sister of a friend of mine wore that dress to her prom. For a poor person I seem to have a lot of rich friends.